Oh my god i think thats my dad (second from right to left) in the botton of the picture, he worked in the misnestry of culture till last year (That's the shirt of the ministery) We were so very happy that year, i was (am) so lucky for having the oportunity of living this part of the history of my veloved country

On October 7th at 8:30 pm Chavez sends to remove the stage in Miraflores, also he sends trucks and other guards on the streets to give a self-coup. From 6 pm was known that Capriles would win by a margin of 5% above the government's candidate.9:30 pm, half an hour before the official results were showed by the CNE, Chavez withdrew tanks and guard commands replace the platform again, the results are turned. Apparently Chavez wanted to do a self-coup , to suspend the guarantees and whoever can kill without fear of being imprisoned. Capriles knows that there was fraud, and to prevent the killing peace business, delivery Radonski president.

Capriles was protecting us from what the government were planning to do, just moments before Chavez had commanded to remove the platform, lower the flag of the box and came military tanks and riot ... they were prepared for a self-coup ... but then they committed the despicable act of daring to alter results. Which by the way it's circulating the calculations of what Tibisay said and there are about 2 million votes, 2 millions of votes are missing from the sum ... make your own conclusion.

Ok you have no right to compare Britain with Venezuela because they are completely different from each other and it's obvious that you've never go to Venezuela and witnessed with your own eyes how really bad is the situation

Isn't it always easy to dismiss the violation of rights when yours aren't the ones being violated and you benefit from it.

It'll be amusing to see your reaction when your property is nationalized and confiscated should America ever get its own Chavez. And before you say that won't happen, what guarantee do you have that it won't?

Seeing as the only people who are loseing out under the Bolivarian Government are the same people who for over a century had a total monopoly over Venezuela and it's people I don't feel that bad about them, they can fuck off to their second homes in Miami.

I along with 95% of people haven't any property worth nationalising Also under the government of Clement Attlee my country had much of it's economy nationalised and most people were happy with it that way, far happier then they are know after years of privatisation we've had over the last 30 years. to give you an example British Railways cost the government 2 billion a year when it was nationalised. these days when the network has been privatised it now costs the government 6 billion a year in subsidies, I'm seeing a massive problem here.

But you have more than the people who have nothing, don't you? Again, what guarantee do you have that what you preach as moral will not be done to you?

"Seeing as the only people who are loseing out under the Bolivarian Government are the same people who for over a century had a total monopoly over Venezuela and it's people I don't feel that bad about them, they can fuck off to their second homes in Miami."

Any proof of such, or is innocent until proven guilty a Bourgeoisie concept that has no place in your proletarian "utopia"?

"Also under the government of Clement Attlee my country had much of it's economy nationalised and most people were happy with it that way, far happier then they are know after years of privatisation we've had over the last 30 years."

"Most people" being the ones who didn't have their property, which they put in time and energy to create, taken from them by force. As I've said time and time again, when you benefit from an immoral act, should it be any surprise you find nothing wrong with it?

No you don't the people who before had almost nothing, now have a roof over their head, food on their table and books in their hands

Proof, just read something on the history of Venezuela,things like the Punto Fijo Pact mean political power stayed in the hands of the weathly while most people had no say in the runing of the country.History has judged the Venezuelan ruling class and found them guilty.

Those people had spend their whole life building and working that property and just had fought the most destructive war in human history, if your willing to see all those people fall to the wayside them your the immoral here not me.

"No you don't the people who before had almost nothing, now have a roof over their head, food on their table and books in their hands"

Brought about by taking them from the people who produce such things.

"Proof, just read something on the history of Venezuela,things like the Punto Fijo Pact mean political power stayed in the hands of the weathly while most people had no say in the runing of the country.History has judged the Venezuelan ruling class and found them guilty."

And the solution is to just transfer that power to the "poor" and use it against the "wealthy"? You don't like having political power used against you, but have no problem using it against others? How long do you expect to keep that power and what moral ground will you have to stand on when the club switches hands again?

"Those people had spend their whole life building and working that property and just had fought the most destructive war in human history, if your willing to see all those people fall to the wayside them your the immoral here not me."

I'm not the one supporting a system of economics that declares people have no right to the property they create and work for.

It was taken from those who had too much in the first place and still have more then could ever need. Pity the billionaire all you like but the rest of us know better.

The wealthy used their political power further there own power at home and abroad, the poor of Venezuela use their poitical power to inprove their lives.Funny you have no problem with giving more power to powerful, but when it comes to giving power to the other 95% of the people you cry foul.

As I keep pointing out, you keep failing to understand, property takes many people to create and work for, it shouldn't belong to one person, it should be owned and controlled by the work force as a whole.

"But you have more than the people who have nothing, don't you? Again, what guarantee do you have that what you preach as moral will not be done to you?"

I doubt a communist would complain if his or her wealth was distributed to those who need it more. If such a thing happened, then communism prevailed, and it would be a thing to celebrate.

"Any proof of such, or is innocent until proven guilty a Bourgeoisie concept that has no place in your proletarian "utopia"?"

You'd have to be fairly naive to think that people who have a lot of wealth do not wish to keep it.

""Most people" being the ones who didn't have their property, which they put in time and energy to create, taken from them by force. As I've said time and time again, when you benefit from an immoral act, should it be any surprise you find nothing wrong with it?"

Private ownership is incompatible with communism. What you mistake as being a matter of morals is actually a matter of necessity. I know it's hard for capitalists to think outside of their "box", but really... removing someone from their excess possessions is not a bad thing. Arguing that it IS a bad thing is to argue that greed is acceptable. So if we want to talk about morals...

You're thinking with capitalist logic. You'll never, ever understand communism unless you abandon such a way of thinking.

But then again, you're one of those people who think socialised healthcare is a bad thing. You're set in your opinions, and no amount of reason will change your mind. You're not here to be enlightened, just to argue. Enjoy paying thousands of dollars throughout your lifetime for something I get for free.

"I doubt a communist would complain if his or her wealth was distributed to those who need it more. If such a thing happened, then communism prevailed, and it would be a thing to celebrate."

Oh, almost forgot to address this.

So I take it that if someone broke in to your house, stole all your food and possessions (clothing, television, computer, furniture, etc), raped your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend (hey, your body is private property), perhaps even killed you (your life is private property), you would have absolutely no problem with it? You would have no problem seeing all the things you put in forty hours a week to acquire being taken from you by people who didn't do a tenth of the work? According to you and your views, those things belong to the other person or persons just as much as they belong to you, the fact that you actually put in the work to acquire them be damned.

See, the problem with your thinking on the subject is that you assume it will happen as you believe it should happen. You never take it all the way and consider it might not happen the way you like.

"I doubt a communist would complain if his or her wealth was distributed to those who need it more. If such a thing happened, then communism prevailed, and it would be a thing to celebrate."

"You'd have to be fairly naive to think that people who have a lot of wealth do not wish to keep it."

Why of course they would. They put in the time and energy to get it, which they will not ever get back, so why shouldn't they want to keep it?

"Private ownership is incompatible with communism. What you mistake as being a matter of morals is actually a matter of necessity. I know it's hard for capitalists to think outside of their "box", but really... removing someone from their excess possessions is not a bad thing. Arguing that it IS a bad thing is to argue that greed is acceptable. So if we want to talk about morals..."

So what happens when the "collective" can't decide on what is to be done with one piece of property? And who and by what right, by what code, by what standard gets to define "excess possessions"? What happens to those who don't agree with the definition (of course, considering communist states tend to be totalitarian dictatorships, I guess I know the answer)? And greed is not only acceptable, but moral if it is rational.

If I'm greedy for money (I am, by the way), and I satisfy that greed by working harder at my job, putting in more hours, doing better work than anyone else and thus giving better service to my customers and bringing in more business for my boss, am I evil? I do all that, by the way.

"You're thinking with capitalist logic. You'll never, ever understand communism unless you abandon such a way of thinking."

Sorry, but it is not healthy to ignore facts and reality. And there's no such thing as capitalist logic or communist logic; facts are facts, A is A, no matter what the philosophy of the one living under them.

"But then again, you're one of those people who think socialised healthcare is a bad thing. You're set in your opinions, and no amount of reason will change your mind. You're not here to be enlightened, just to argue. Enjoy paying thousands of dollars throughout your lifetime for something I get for free."

Because I understand the cost of it. I'm sure someone like you who sees nothing wrong with forcing people to provide their skills against their will enjoys it, but I, who supports individual rights, do not believe in slavery ([link]).

And I also know that the thinking behind socialized healthcare is the reason why healthcare is in such a sorry state:

Of course, knowing you and your kind, you will ignore the links because you are too cowardly to defend your views and so would rather pretend there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with them. Rest assured that reality will wake you up the hard way soon enough.

First of all, it seems that you know nothing about what is happening in Venezuela. People are getting murdered every day because of lack of security, we can't even trust the military and the police because now there is no difference between a police and a delinquent.

So I give you this advice, the next time you make this kind of comments you should inform yourself about politics.

I'm not going to show you "recent proof" because I can tell that it was never on your mind in the first place. You initially asked for what good he has done for Venezuela, not "why isn't he a good president anymore."

Do you understand that the opposition and the US media only used the whole crime issue as a mere attack point against Chavez? They don't give a damn about crime, they just want Chavez out of office.

Indeed. Crime was far worse before Chavez became elected. Given the choice between:

A. Crime, but also justice for workers or B. Crime, and also the exploitation of workers

I'd certainly go with A.

Chavez isn't perfect, but socialism is. Anyone who paves the road to socialism is preferable in my books.

Capriles would sell Venezuela out. Anyone who votes him into power will be responsible for the suffering of the lower class and the sheer rampant capitalist destruction that will be unleashed as a result.

but Chavez is not Socialist, he might say he is! but he is not, he is Communist! he is not helping the country nor the people.you don't live in Venezuela to actually know what is going on and you can't trust what the news say about him because is completely different to the reality that we are living -.-

I know a Venezuelan family living in England who happen to support Chavez. They moved away from Venezuela during the rule of Caldera. I clearly remember how my friend told me that things in Venezuela have improved drastically since Chavez rose to power.

You don't have to live in a country to have an insight into its workings. Many of the lower class here in the UK voted the Conservative party into power, much to their own detriment. This is evidence enough for me that the people of a nation don't automatically know everything about it just because they live there. If everyone was an expert on their own country, everyone would know how to resolve whatever problems their country faces. This is obviously not the case.

It is abundantly documented that Chavez's social programs and social reforms have helped countless people out of poverty, and improved the lives of many. There are problems in every country; it's not perfect anywhere. Do you really think that crime and corruption will simply disappear with the advent of Capriles? Under capitalism, it will likely become worse... a gradual decline back to the conditions under Caldera. Your country will be sold piece by piece to vulturous foreign corporations, hell-bent on exploiting the population for every last penny that they can get, regardless of the damage they do to your environment and the lives they ruin when they inevitably go bust. There's no such thing as infinite growth, and capitalism relies on such a myth. It is better that communism blossoms now rather than later, no matter how rocky the road. The ends justify the means, always.

He has put money into education for the working class, he has given subsidies so people can buy food and a lot more more that you would have heard of if you bother to read anthing written outside the US about the man.

You listen to me right now you oversensitive expat. You are a middle-class/upper-class light-skinned/White (take your pick) Venezuelan who is only upset that Chavez got re-elected because you have a hard on for another light-skinned Venezuelan known as Capriles.

A dictator. I'm a venezuelan. My family is not rich, and even so he's going to expropriate one of my father's land (which is actually being used by my uncle himself, his ONLY source). Fair? Would you be fine if Obama just decided to give your house to some families, because he had the idea you suddenly don't deserve it? What's he supposed to do now? And my dad? He didn't steal the property, I may clear. So in short, this is a very common situation here. Something else, he has increased the minimum wage. Awesome, right? Um. Except from the fact that stores has to increase prices as well, so the money won't exactly be enough. (Inflation Feel free to check out those statistics. Or better yet, come down here and try to buy an ice cream and a pair of shoes the same day. What else... Oh, yeah! There are entire counties with no water, nor electricity. (...OPEC?) The education has been expanded, YES, but not improved. And I'm finishing with this, would you go with a doctor who just studied 2 years and a half?

Well it wasn't so hard, my first clue was your amazing argumentative skills. But anyways, if he actually saves the planet and brings peace to the universe, as he in fact promised this year, I'd be more than happy. Plus, I'm not a fanatic of any political party (may be even religious to some...)Really interesting talking to you. Like Really. So deep.